Intended as a history of the Kanyok and not an explanation of scholarly theory, the text of this book gives only limited attention to a discussion of historical methodology. There are three reasons for this strategy. First, the study of African history has matured to the point where scholars should not be defensive about the tools and exegetical techniques of the discipline. Thus, each new book need not devote long sections defending and explaining method or legitimacy. In fact, having once studied the social values and institutions of pre-industrial America, I am convinced that African historians often are more cautious and demand more proof when drawing conclusions than their colleagues in either American or European studies. Second, I make no claims to have developed a new methodology. Readers will recognize my debt to scholars such as Jan Vansina, Joseph Miller, Victor Turner, and Clifford Geertz. Anyone interested in learning about methodology should turn to their studies for more comprehensive and elegant statements than I make in this work. Finally, I owe a debt to the Kanyok people to recount their story and not to fill the book with discussions on topics which are unneeded and incomprehensible to many readers. While I know that the stories of Citend, Ilung a Cibang, Kasongo Cinyama, and Kabw Muzemb will be worth telling for many years to come, I have less confidence that the manner in which their history has been recovered will be of enduring interest. Thinking back over the books, articles, and dissertations I have read, I know of nothing more tedious and quaint than now outdated, but once fashionable, studies which used historical or political data only as vehicles to support an intricate explanation of scholarly technique.